1 / 23

AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION William R. Brinkley,Ph.D brinkley@bcm.tmc.edu 713-798-5263

AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION William R. Brinkley,Ph.D brinkley@bcm.tmc.edu 713-798-5263. What’s at stake? Integrity and trust Reputation in your profession Grant support Jobs and promotions Intellectual property

terrence
Télécharger la présentation

AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION William R. Brinkley,Ph.D brinkley@bcm.tmc.edu 713-798-5263

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION William R. Brinkley,Ph.D brinkley@bcm.tmc.edu 713-798-5263 What’s at stake? Integrity and trust Reputation in your profession Grant support Jobs and promotions Intellectual property Who owns the data?

  2. AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION • Decisions: • When is it time to publish? • Authorship: Who will the principle author, coauthors and in what order on the manuscript? Who should not be an author. • What journal? • General or specialty journal • Brief note or full paper? • Impact factor • Speed of publication • Book chapter, review articles

  3. AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION PROCESS: SUBMITTING AUTHORS JOURNAL OFFICE MANAGING EDITOR REVIEWERS (2-3) MANAGING EDITOR(Decisions: accept, revise, reject)

  4. Deciding on Authorship "Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content. This participation must include : (a) conception or design, or analysis and interpretation of data, or both; (b) drafting the article or revising it for critically important intellectual content; and (c) final approval of the version to be published. Participation solely in the collection of data does not justify authorship." British Medical Journal 291, 722 (1985).

  5. Criteria for AuthorshipCouncil of Science Editors • Design • Supervision • Resources • Material • Data Collection • Analysis&/or Interpretation • Literature Search • Writing • Critical Review

  6. Criteria forAuthorship Contributions that may NOT justify authorship by themselves can be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section. These include • technical help • financial and material support • administrative support • clerical or editorial contributions

  7. Peer Review The following could constitute a conflict of interest in peer review • Reviewing a manuscript/grant from a PI at the same institution • A potential personal financial gain or loss based on your decision • A direct scientific advantage based on your review • Holding a competitor's manuscript unduly long to delay publication • Using information gained in a confidential review to further your own research

  8. Peer Review A peer reviewer is expected to • have sufficient expertise to evaluate the submission • provide a timely review • maintain confidentiality of the review process

  9. Peer Review An author/principal investigator is expected to • submit original work that has not been previously published (unless clearly cited) • submit accurate data • provide appropriate attribution to the work of others • share materials after publication

  10. SYMPOSIUM BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE----June 2005 Dr. Woo Suk Hwang, Seoul National Univ. Korea. Published in SCIENCE, 2005

  11. 2005--- South Korean scientists develop first human embryonic stem cell lines (hESCs) claimed to be customized to match injured or sick patients • 2006 ---CLAIM CHALLENGED---PAPER WITHDRAWN FROM SCIENCE—SOUTH KOREANS RESEARCHERS ADMIT THAT DATA WAS FAKED----DIS-HONORED

  12. Woo Suk Hwang and G. Schatten Dr Schatten was the whisleblower, but he was also the co-author on the Science paper—is he at fault?

  13. What would you do? Bob Powell, a postdoctoral fellow in biochemistry, has just completed a manuscript detailing the results from the first project in which he had taken a leading role. The focus of his project has been to discern the ways in which humans metabolize sulfites, a class of chemicals commonly used to preserve wines and dried fruits. Although he had developed the rough outlines of the project on his own, he owes much to individuals both inside and outside his lab. As he is writing up the paper, he deliberates on making the following people coauthors to recognize their contribution to the work. Who should be coauthors?

  14. What would you do? Author or NOT? A colleague at another university, a toxicologist specializing in food additives, shared with Bob his unpublished work on the in vivo activity of sulfites, information that allowed Bob to choose the ideal animal model for the experiment--the Abyssinian field mouse.

  15. What would you do? Author or NOT? A friend of his, who happened to be a wildlife specialist, provided Bob with much advice on rearing and maintaining a colony of Abyssinian field mice such that he would have a stable pool of animal subjects.

  16. What would you do? Author or NOT? A highly experienced technician in the lab gave Bob advice on modifying an assay he had been using, which finally allowed him to measure successfully sulfite metabolites in mouse urine. This technician also assisted in writing up the methods section of the paper.

  17. What would you do? Author or NOT? The number of assays that Bob had to conduct was quite sizable and more than he could manage on his own, given other demands of the project Thus, an undergraduate college student collected most of the urine samples and conducted the assays yielding the data.

  18. What would you do? Author or NOT? A senior researcher in a neighboring lab who took an interest in Bob’s career offered to review the initial drafts of Bob’s paper. By the end of the writing process, this researcher had helped Bob outline the paper, suggested a few additional experiments that strengthened the paper’s conclusions, and made a number of editing changes in the penultimate draft that enhanced the paper’s clarity.

  19. What would you do? Jim Gibbons is a respected investigator in the area of HIV infection. His laboratory is currently trying to develop new peptide-based reagents for inhibiting the initial interaction of the virus with T-cells. The work is progressing well, and he and his postdoc, Helen Andrews, are finishing off the final experiments showing that bacitracin, a small peptide antibiotic, is a potent inhibitor of this interaction. Dr. Gibbons received a manuscript in the mail from the editor of a prestigious journal asking him to review a manuscript that had just been submitted to the journal.

  20. What would you do? The first page of the manuscript bore the title, "Bacitracin is a potent inhibitor of HIV infection of T-cells." The authors were unknown to Dr. Gibbons and were located at a different institution.

  21. What would you do? A. Review the manuscript. After all, Gibbons is an eminently qualified reviewer B. Hold the manuscript as long as possible while you finish your manuscript C. Return the manuscript to the journal – after reading it. D. Return the manuscript to the journal – without reading it. E. Contact the author and advise him of the situation.

  22. When does a scientific discovery become public domain? • On the date the discovery is first presented in a public forum as a poster, seminar or talk. • On the date of acceptances as an abstract for a national meeting? • When it is written in a thesis or dissertation and accepted by your Graduate Program and Dean? • When the dissertation is accepted by the school’s library and entered into the library’s official catalog? • On the date the paper is finally and formally accepted for publication by a professional journal?

More Related